Journal 1-6
And the politics continue...
I. Last week I wanted to know who would win the election between Chuck Robb and Oliver North. To my surprise, Chuck Robb won. This statement from "The Perfect Candidate" basically says it all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7bTYhy8_GE
Basically America just didn't trust Oliver North as much as they trusted Chuck Robb, because of Oliver North's involvement in Iran-Contra and other scandals. Chuck Robb had an effective method of appealing to the people, and it won him the election.
source: WickDahdams. (n.d.). YouTube - Chuck Robb OWNS Ollie North . YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. . Retrieved October 24, 2010, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7bTYhy8_GE
II. This week in class we first finished watching "The Percect Candidate". As mentioned above, Chuck Robb won the election. This wasn't exactly what I expected. However, that might be due to the fact that much more of Oliver North's campaign was revealed to us than Chuck Robb's. I didn't have the chance to be unbiased because most of the film was focused on Oliver North. Next we spent a class period analyzing the film, like we have done with every other one. We discussed how politics are basically evil and full of lies. Also we talked about negative campaigning being more effective than positive campaigning because it is more noticeable. However it is also unethical because it is intentionally bringing down another candidate. We discussed the role of campaign managers as well. At the end of the film, North's campaign manager was expressing his anger when they lost the election. It's an extremely difficult and tedious job. Personally it's a role that I would never even dream of taking on. I'm not very big on politics and I wouldn't want to put forth that kind of time.
Journal 1-5
Ollie North or Chuck Robb?
I. At the end of last week I wanted to know more about the two longest held hostages from the Lebanon crisis. Here's what I found:
Terry Anderson- he was kidnapped on March 16, 1985 in West Beirut; he was kidnapped by members of the Shi'ite Muslim fundamentalist group called Hizballah, who wanted to swap Western hostages for comrades imprisoned in Kuwait; He was chained to a radiator in a dark room, had 15 minutes each day to shower, brush his teeth, and wash his underwear, and slept on a mat on the floor.
source: Hostages The Lost Life Of Terry Anderson - TIME. (n.d.). Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com. Retrieved October 16, 2010, from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,957275,00.html
David Jacobsen- he was kidnapped in May of 1985, and was held captive for 17 months; kidnapped by Muslim fundamentalists; was in the hands of Islamic Jihad.
source: BBC ON THIS DAY | 2 | 1986: US hostage freed in Beirut. (n.d.). BBC News - Home. Retrieved October 16, 2010, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/2/newsid_2537000/2537987.stm
II. This week in class we started with looking at some various propaganda techniques such as: name calling, glittering generalities, transfer, testimonials, plain folks, band wagon, fear, and unwarranted extrapolation. I've seen most of these techniques used in popular media and political campaigns before. I'm not as familiar with some as others though. I personally have been exposed most to name calling, testimonials, band wagon, and glittering generalities. When I think about propaganda being used, the first thing that comes to mind are the acne commercials or the animal commercials where famous people are shown using the product or supporting the organization. In truth, that doesn't inspire me to follow their lead and do what they do.
source: nature, a. t., fallible, O. s., admits, a. O., So, t. a., & institution&, t. q. (n.d.). Podcast « . Fightin' Words. Retrieved October 16, 2010, from http://fightinwordsusa.wordpress.com/podcast/
For the rest of the week, we watched "The Perfect Candidate" which is about the political campaining of Oliver North and Chuck Robb. We saw each man and his campaign committee attempting to reach out to the public. We saw videos and commercials that were made to shoot down the opposing candidate. We even saw a debate between the two candidates. I personally feel that Oliver North has the better campaign, but maybe that's just because we weren't able to see as much of Chuck Robb's. I've never payed much attention to senatorial campaigns, or even presidential for that matter. Chuck Robb seemed most focused on appealing to the people personally. He wandered through a grocery store shaking hands and introducing himself to people. Oliver North, on the other hand, would speak to larger groups and make his points rather than being personal.
source: Iran-Contra Affair: Where Are They Now? - ABC News. (n.d.). ABCNews.com - Breaking news, politics, online news, world news, feature stories, celebrity interviews and more - ABC News. Retrieved October 16, 2010, from http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/BrianRoss/popup?id=3196035
III. This week we will be finishing up "The Perfect Candidate". By the end of the week I hope to know who won the senatorial election and why. I want to know exact reasons why the people chose who they did. Which campaigning techniques were effective and which ones weren't?
Journal 1-4
Documentary Rivalry
1. I didn't really get an answer to my last week's question. The only interaction I remember between Michael Moore and Mike Wilson is the time when Moore was speaking at the college. Wilson asked for an interview and Moore declined. Later in the movie, Wilson is shown calling repeatedly to get a meeting with Moore arranged. He is denied basically every time. He even sent some flowers to Moore and never got his interview.
II. This week in class we finished watching "Michael Moore Hates America" and talked about it. We found overall that Mike Wilson uses the same media techniques as Michael Moore. We discussed the ethical issues behind Wilson's documentary. Where is the line drawn in terms of ethnicity in a documentary? Well, the title of Wilson's film is just the icing on the cake. As soon as you pick up this documentary you can tell that someone is going to be bashing this Michael Moore character. Already the audience gets the impression that Moore is the "bad guy". Anything that is harmful to the reputation of another person is technically unethical.
Now that we've finished both documentaries, I've concluded that Michael Moore's documentary was much more effective at making its point. I don't entirely agree with either man's views, and I think they're both obnoxious. However Michael Moore did a better job with varying his media techniques to hypnotize the audience. Mike Wilson appears to be a more honest filmmaker than Michael Moore, but that isn't what makes an audience take your side most of the time. Moore captures the attention of his audience at the very beginning of the documentary, and holds it until the very end. The cartoon, the montage, and the random unqualified authorities made "Bowling for Columbine" entertaining enough for people to forget about the lies being presented.
At the end of the week we took some background notes on "The Perfect Candidate" and began watching it. As far as my opinion on this topic goes, I have an idea of an ideal political candidate. He/she would be charismatic, honest, organized, responsible, devoted, educated and respectful.
III. For this upcoming week I want to know more about the Iran-Contra Scandal. I hope to get information about the two longest held hostages, Terry Anderson and David Jacobsen.
Journal 1-3
Does Michael Moore hate America?
I. In reguard to my question from last week, I did find out a little bit of information. I didn't figure out the actual answer, but Mike Wilson's "behind the scenes" information was useful. There was an interview with the people from the bank (where Michael Moore got his gun) that revealed some unknown facts. The only things we saw were Michael Moore going into the bank, opening an account, and getting a gun. However he had already spoken to the lady at the bank prior to the filming, and his gun had been shipped from another location. Where i'm going with this is that the people shown in the documentary are at least somewhat aware of what Michael Moore does with his films.
II. This week we began watching another documentary, this time by Mike Wilson. It uses many of the same fallacies to present the opposite viewpoint of Michael Moore's. Mike Wilson believes that Michael Moore hates America, and he does everything in his power to prove that to the viewers.
I think the most effective persuading technique that Mike Wilson uses is the interview with the guy who "diagnoses" Michael Moore with an actual mental condition. I don't remember what exactly that guy's profession was, but I remember him being a qualified authority.
Mike Wilson, much like Michael Moore, uses fallacies to trick the audience. He uses rhetorical questioning, appeal to pity, appeal to the people, cartoons with loaded language, unqualified opinion, red herring, and the use of qualified authorities.
So far i'm not particularly enjoying Mike Wilson's documentary. I liked Michael Moore's a lot better. I wonder if that might have been the other way around if I had seen them in reverse order though. I thought "Bowling for Columbine" was a lot more entertaining and interesting. "Michael Moore Hates America" is more factual and straight forward. Mike Wilson does what he has to do to make his point, and that's it. There isn't any "wow factor" to hold the audience's attention.
III. One thing I would like to know more about from this week's class is: Have Michael Moore and Mike Wilson ever had an actual sit-down interview together? It was shown in the documentary that Wilson went to a college where Moore was speaking and asked for an interview, but he was refused. So I want to know if the two men with contrasting viewpoints have ever had a civil conversation about their documentaries or their differing opinions.
